MarylandNed

That's debatable and also depends on your definition of terrorism. Many in the US seem to be defining it in such a way that it can only be perpetrated by Muslims i.e. terrorism, in their opinion, actually means violence committed by Muslims. There was a good article on this in The Guardian recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ora-sandy-hook

dakota44

I view mass shootings as terrorism, and we do a real swell job of that. There has not been, until Boston, a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since ....when? (with the exception of a handful of lone wolf shootings by Muslims as opposed to organized attacks) Been a while. While some may consider Fort Hood to be one, it wasn't. So in all of this time, 3 dead from such an attack. As tragic and disgusting as that is, we do a much better job as a nation of killing each other. 2012 set a record for mass shootings in the U.S. There were 7 of them, killing 72 and wounding 68. Total casualties, 140. But we sure can't do anything about reasonable gun control, including better background checks. That just wouldn't be prudent,sarcasm intended. What happened in Boston, as reprehensible and horrible as it was, is a rarity. Gun violence is far from rare. We, as a nation, do a real fine job of terrorizing ourselves.

MarylandNed

Totally agree. And Congress couldn't even pass a bipartisan bill on expanded background checks for gun sales even though it is supported by 85-90% of Americans.

lizzyq

Over here in the UK a phrase that really gets my goat is "animal rights activists" when that too should be "animal rights terrorists" as their avowed intent is to terrorise their victims.

dakota44

Living in the U.S., one is far more likely to be killed (gunned down) in school, a theater, at the mall or at work, by a fellow American, than by a terrorist attack. Sad but true. So who should we really fear? From 2000 to 2012 there were 31 incidents of mass shootings with 266 killed and 221 wounded. 6 school shootings, 7 workplace, 2 religious and the rest in the 'other' category including theaters etc. Mother Jones has a full list from 1982 on, here. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ones-full-data

scrubbedexpat099

Also that Israelis of whatever persuasion are of the same stock.

Pulaski

The odd thing is, I don't worry about being shot, I DO worry about terrorist bombs, esp on aircraft and trains. Thankfully I fly infrequently and can't remember the last time I was on a train. In other words I am not "terrorised" by domestic gun violence.

dakota44

Perhaps because it is so commonplace and because of the 'it won't happen here' syndrome.

dlake02

I agree with everything except your use of the words "MASS SHOOTINGS." The two teenagers that were gunned down in Richmond, CA on Wednesday night last week whilst standing outside their house chatting - nothing to do with any criminal activity.

They were terrorised.

Or the 14 people that have been killed in the East Bay since the start of the month ? That is a community living in terror.

The more I live here, the more I feel this is a pretty violent and macho society - couple that with the feeling that you are very much on your own because government at all levels does nothing from stunningly poor transport to a lack of social care to an absence of health care, and it is not surprising that everyone feels they have to fight their corner.

America is it's own worst enemy.

scrubbedexpat099

I can only speak for myself but I find London to be far more of concern than here.

I have an old truck and never lock it, well the central locking went wobbly, can not imagine doing that in the UK.

kimilseung

Except for all the activists who are not terrorists.

kimilseung

It needs some political motivation, the tactic is to cause wider spread damage than the actual immediate victims. Most mass shooters do not have nay wider motive than those that they kill.


If this etymology is correct, then it originally referred to state terror. I think it was being debated earlier, whether the state can indulge in terror.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism

dakota44

I would agree. I limited it to mass shootings because of the data I linked to. It is all terror though.

Pulaski

No! It's not! .... as per Kimilseung, immediately above, mass shootings are not terrorism, they are random, rare (albeit all too frequent) events. A series of coordinated shootings, even if very informally coordinated, would become "terrorism". There have been several incidents in the US, UK, and Europe where the connection is Al Queda and/ or radical islam, that appears to meet the definition of terrorism. Whereas Sandy Hook, Aurora, and the shooting of Gaby Giffords have no common link or philosophy of the shooters, and therefore no expectation of any further linkedshooting(s).Some people now have a fear of mass shootings, but they are not bring terrorised.

Speedwell

I just heard about the fuel barge explosions in Alabama (via a Skype friend; on the orders of my therapist I am not to "borrow trouble" by reading the news lol...).

I do understand that people are blaming terrorists for it. I also do. I blame the terrorists who operate by cutting corners on safety and storage of dangerous materials, and who kill by falsifying paperwork. They belong to the deadly religion of "profit at any cost" that has been operating for over a hundred years. The last known major hit by members of this cult was the West fertiliser factory. The best known recent hit was Deepwater Horizon.